San Diego State's conference isn't THAT strong.
San Diego State isn't in the WAC. THAT's what I was getting at. If they were, there might be real pressure to push them in the legislature. As it is now, the MWC is seen as a comfortable and appropriate home by most of their supporters and alumni.
...That's why Colorado IS in the footprint if the Pac-10 makes the move. However, some of that is Colorado's call. I doubt they'd budge at this point.
I strongly disagree. I think if Colorado got the call again, they would again rush to say yes. It is simply a much higher caliber of conference in terms of reputation than the Big 12.
Stanford ain't liberal. Phil Knight, whose surrogate is the AD at Oregon, ain't liberal. That's overstated.
That was the arguement as to why the PAC 10 proposal was UT and Colorado and not UT and A&M years ago. Certainly, even back then, A&M was more respected than Colorado.
It could be an overstated argument, but it is still a widely held one.
With regards to Stanford not being liberal, I have two siblings who graduated from Stanford and I spent a summer in my late high school years at Stanford. It was pretty liberal back then. IMO it is where liberal eggheads go. God bless 'em.
UCLA and USC could swap divisions every 2 years to ensure that whichever LA school that is currently dominant will face the best outlying school in a home and home after 2 years. That gives stability, isn't hard to figure out, and leave no PAC 10 school feeling "cheated".
Believe me, schools will feel cheated by that whole California blather, starting with USC and perhaps UCLA. It's called greed.
I am just saying that if you put both the LA schools in the south division --- lets say --- you would have a lot of schools in the north division's recruiting dry up.
I even doubt the notion that the PAC-10 will expand if the Big 10 does. Unless Colorado changes their mind, or unless there's a massive population explosion in a currently lax market, there's nowhere to expand to.
I posted an editorial under the news articles section by a guy who speculates that the PAC 10 commissioner who was supposedly forced out recently was one of the main advocates against PAC 10 realignment. I think you have rightly mentioned a number of reasons against expansion, but there are also reasons for expansion now that perhaps his age had lead him to not consider as much as a younger commisioner (his replacement) might.
It could be with him out that the PAC 10 MO is not to "hold off on 12 until the Big 10 goes to 12".
Regarding expansion, we may have all given UNM too little credit as a viable PAC 10 candidate. UNM may only be a tier 3 university, but so is the University of Utah who we all push. CSU is only a the tail end of tier 2, barely ahead of tier 3. Just like Utah, CSU, and Colorado, UNM is ranked as a Research University (with very high research activity) by the Carnegie Foundation. BYU, a tier 2 school, is ranked one tier lower as a Research University (with only high research activity). The PAC 10 has in the past not considered BYU a "true" research institution. It seems like if that is their criteria, in their academic evaluations, UNM might be just as viable as Utah, a notch above BYU.
UNM is a storied basketball school. Colorado flirted with being a football elite in the recent past. Both schools draw fairly well ---an important fact as they could end up being the Mississippi and Mississippi State of the PAC 10. The fans will still come out for middle of the pack to losing teams. They don't expect too much/aren't spoiled.
Finally as stated before, while the buying power in UNM's viewing areas is modest compared to Utah, UNM does have some sway in 3 DMAs that account for about 25% more TV households and most importantly, like Colorado's DMAs, they are virgin markets for the PAC 10.
Arizona has 3 DMAs that have about 2.3M TV Households. A Colorado/UNM expansion would yield about 3M NEW TV households for the PAC 10. That isn't insignificant --- it is in fact a larger TV household yield than Oregon's, Arizona's, or Washington's duos add --- and is probably worth doing if the PAC 10 feels a need to expand.
A Colorado/UNM expansion makes more TV and athletic sense than anything else at all reasonable (UT and A&M fall in the unreasonable range, IMO.) I can come up with for an impending expansion, and ...unlike Utah... UNM and Colorado do not have a higher profile, and more powerful university in their state that might block their move to the PAC 10. Both are both flagships and by far the dominant schools in their states.